Ghosh, Jayanta2021-03-222021-03-222020-030976-3570https://ir.nbu.ac.in/handle/123456789/4008Up-gradation of the technology and its interference in human life by the introduction of Artificial Intelligence/robotic machines makes human life vulnerable. These vulnerabilities are more when the question comes to the right issues on the intellectual property. The credibility to the introduction of the Artificial Intelligence/robotic machines depends on humans, but Artificial Intelligence is likely to produce new solutions to problems and in so doing to create intangible outputs that could, at least in theory, be perceived as Intellectual Property. Current intellectual property system is also affected with this technological interference. In this context, the future discussion is one who owns the Intellectual Property rights in creations produced by robots. Artificial Intelligence remains an area where there is frenetic Intellectual Property activity and it has largely been based on protecting Artificial Intelligence systems or applications. But, in near future where machines are deployed to create complex products, the question of Intellectual Property ownership could become clouded. Artificial Intelligence helps solve complex issues simply and sophisticatedly whereas legal ownership on the other hand, may not be fairlysosimple.From an intellectual property perspective, the most interesting aspect is that the resolution asks for the elaboration of criteria for ‘own intellectual’ creation for copyrightable works produced by computers or robots.It may be argued that the machine is a sensible being entitled to ownership rights. It is not difficult to imagine that those bringing the copyright lawsuit had ulterior motives. If a robot or machine could own a copyright, why not a house? And if a machine could own property, perhaps the machine should also have additional rights including the right not to be owned at all. These questions raise issues that go to the very foundations of intellectual property law, including the economic incentive to encourage certain activities, and the ‘moral rights’ associating with according to credit to authors. Here all the rights theory of jurisprudential law comes in trouble to figure out the main issue. The same issues may arise with respect to general Artificial Intelligence. If the Artificial Intelligence was self-aware and capable of creative and inventive activity, why shouldn’t other rights be accorded? But it has toregulate these technologies and without restraining innovation. While considering the ethical and legal implications and consequences of the conflict to be resolved for the future complications.enIntellectual PropertyArtificial IntelligenceRobotRightsArticle